The case for war in the Strait of Hormuz
Iran can indefinitely ruin international economics and rule of law unless the Strait is reopened and Iran is punished
We’re nearing the end of the third week of the current war on Iran, and all governments except the US and Israel refuse direct involvement. But should they?
In the first week, the bystander’s choice seemed clear enough. The US and Israel were focused on neutralizing Iran’s leaders and nuclear program (and pursuant air-defenses and retaliatory ballistic missiles). Most countries have no means to support such activities, even if they want to.
But Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz has crossed a line. Every country can now justify intervention to re-open it.
Every country has a self-interest, given that 20 percent of the global supply of liquid natural gas and oil pass the Strait. Almost every country receives fossil fuels from this source. Even if they don’t, they’re still exposed to global price rises. Everybody suffers.
Yes, Donald Trump should have prepared to re-open the Strait before his forces started striking Iran on 28 February, instead of posting a request for help two weeks later. But then again, when he had asked last month for advance permission to use US bases on British territory, Britain refused, citing Lord Hermer’s (the Attorney General’s) simplistic advice from June that permission might be considered unlawful aggression.
Don’t get me wrong: other countries have righteous reasons to refuse involvement. I do not want to be misrepresented as denying the good reasons why other countries should not get involved.
But I do resent the black-and-white ways in which Western but not non-Western leaders are condemned for conflict.
The Guardian even claimed that the US and Israel had no justification and no objective in attacking Iran!
In fact, the US and Israeli strikes were justified to punish Iran for non-compliance with treatied obligations to refrain from weaponizing nuclear materials – and sponsoring terrorism, exporting revolution, breaking embargoes on trade with other despotic regimes, supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine, and repressing dissent.
When Iran’s useful idiots say the US and Israeli attacks were unlawful, they might mean that first strikes violate the sovereignty norm and the convention against aggression. What they conveniently forget is that first strikes are justifiable as pre-emptive self-defense.
Even if the US and Israel were unjustified in their first strikes, Iran has retaliated unlawfully against neighbors and international communications.
